Constitutional Apologetics on Prayer in School

Self | 20-October-2001 | Michael Miessen

[Notwithstanding]

I understand but reject your premise and conclusion.

Abortion is not an issue that nominal Catholics care about, particularly. While serious Catholics do ardently oppose abortion, abortion is not really a Catholic issue - rather it is a "people of good will" issue. Always has been. People of good will cannot sanction the brutal slaughter of innocent babies.

The US has many people who are awake - and a huge number of them are not Catholic in any way.

It is sad that the SCOTUS bright lights stole the issue from the people and arrogantly foisted their nonsensical drivel upon us - prior to any decisive widespread grass roots action.

[gcruse]

 People of good will cannot
sanction the brutal slaughter of innocent babies.

Then where are the initiatives and referenda to
overturn abortion?  Why are they not appearing
on state ballots as I&R , the constitutionality of which
are seldom determined until they pass?

[Jim Noble]

>>since the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the meaning of the Constitution<<

Where, praytell?

[Notwithstanding]

You put your finger on the precise problem.

When the SCOTUS becomes the sole arbiter of what powers the Constitution gives to the SCOTUS, Congress and the President, then the SCOTUS is in a position to steal all sorts of power and limit the power of the other two branches. (Some of us think this is the current status)

Likewise it very dangerous to think that the SCOTUS actually determines infalliboly what is and is not Constitutional - to the point that some will consider all of their opinions to be 'right' even when they are obviously 'wrong'.

SCOTUS is authorized by the Constitution to interpret the meaning of laws. SCOTUS created for itself (in its Marbury decision) the exclusive right to determine what the words of the Constitution mean.

We have to ask why Congress and the President can't also play a role in such determinations. Why is it the exclusive right of the SCOTUS?

[Notwithstanding]

Two possibilites follow from my previous post above:

1) There is no majority of people of good will.

2) The people of good will have been lulled to sleep or convinced they are powerless in light of the SCOTUS' bench legislation concerning abortion.

[JMJ333]

But do they do it by interpreting the Constitution or by interpreting the legislation?

They're illegally interpreting it by "reading" into it the outcome they desire. How else could they come up with the idea that its "OKAY" to engage in no-knock raids?

Is it that you cannot compare two objects and interpret only one of them?

There are issues on which they don't do any comparing or upholding-- they merely advance social agenda. Roe vs. Wade is the prime example.

Is it a matter of logic that, in order to interpret legislation vis a vis constitutionality, one must simultaneously interpret the Constitution? In which case the question, "Where does it say the SC is to interpret the Constitution?" has to be answered, "It is logically impossible to judge legislation otherwise."

I disagree. The constitution isn't "iffy" or murky--its spelled out crystal clear. They need to uphold it and stop advancing liberalism--but then again...if it weren't for the courts, a huge amount of the liberal agenda would have never made it into the fabric of society.

[Dumb_Ox]

Then where are the initiatives and referenda to overturn abortion?

Ireland.

Actually this is a quite relevant question. The US Human Life amendment appears perpetually stalled. Perhaps I'll go help push.

[gcruse]

Two possibilites follow from my previous post above:

1) There is no majority of people of good will.

     I believe there is no majority of prolifers.

2) The people of good will have been lulled to sleep or convinced
they are powerless in light of the SCOTUS' bench legislation
concerning abortion.

    Is it no longer something that can be affected at state level?
    Maybe that is it.  In which case, those who acquiesce to
    central government have paved the way.  Are we
    libertarians yet?

[He Rides A White Horse]

Should we allow the posting of the Ten Commandments and or other “Religious” statements or expressions in our public places?

Here's a simple exercise. I would like to hear somebody state one law NOT based on the Ten Commandments.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I believe there is no majority of prolifers.

Define pro-lifer...give it your best shot.

[gcruse]

 The constitution isn't "iffy" or murky--its spelled out crystal clear.

I didn't say it was iffy or murky.  I said there may have to
be simutaneous interpretation.  Is free speech only oral?

[gcruse]

Nope.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Nope.

I didn't think so...........

That's an open challenge to anybody.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Ping your friends on that one.

All of them.

[Notwithstanding]

Define:

1) Define

2) give

3) it

4) your

5) best

6) shot

[He Rides A White Horse]

It's an easy question, notwithstanding..........define pro-lifer.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I like the easy questions...the simple truths.........know what I mean?

[JMJ333]

I said there may have to be simutaneous interpretation. Is free speech only oral?

How can there be a simultaneous interpretation on something that is spelled out clearly? Is does mean is.

No, free speech isn't only oral, but words have meaning--yes, sometimes more than one meaning--but not our constitution, which was clearly meant to easily define the meanings of those written words so as not to be "left open" for twisting and dancing.

[He Rides A White Horse]

No long paragraphs............no twists and turns...ready to go right to the crux of the matter?